Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds the uniqueness constraint but does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, what happens on failure, or any side effects. It repeats the title without enriching behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is repetitive, stating 'Modifies the display name of object storage' twice. It is under-specified rather than concise, wasting space on redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation with four parameters, a nested body, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It omits information about the request body, response, error conditions, and operational context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not describe any of the four parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. Although the schema includes a description for displayName, the tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool modifies the display name of object storage, using a specific verb and resource. It is straightforward but does not differentiate from sibling tools like upgradeObjectStorage, and it redundantly repeats the title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to related tools. The only added detail is the uniqueness constraint, which is a validation rule, not usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.